next an lectures in history, we la sierra university professor alicia gutierrez-romine, teaches a class about policies regarding abortion starting in the 19th century. she tracks changes in medical practice and public opinion through court cases and newspaper coverage. she also describes abortion restrictions, access to illegal abortions, costs, and health risks in different time periods and states. >> welcome back. this week, we are looking at the topic of abortion. in class on tuesday, we watched the film abortion stories

women's health. that was looking at some of the more current debates about abortion now. it was looking at abortion in states that had begun to legislate abortion restrictions. today we are going to go back in time a little bit, we are going to give historical context. we are going to do a historical overview of the topic of abortion. we are going to start nationally. we are going to look at california specifically. specifically on the topics of specialized abortion, abortions for shall lists, and decriminalization. we will go back to the national context to look at roe v. wade. we will look at the legislation that has happened since then in the more recent years. if you recall from around week one or two, we had a very brief introduction to the topic of abortion in the colonial period. we talked about with several graph spinner and her abortion in the 17 forties. we had a brief introduction to it. we are talking around the time

of the calm stop. does everyone remember that from a couple weeks ago? can they remind us what the comstock act is? >> contraceptives, or information on planned parenthood. anything like that. >> no advertisement of contraceptives. especially the dissemination of it in the mail. it effectively made it criminal to advertised these things begin around 1873. we showed you the political cartoon if you recall, comstock was carrying a woman and the caption was she gave birth to a naked baby. so the joke, the punchline, was that it was rude. it's important to know he doesn't oppose all methods of birth control.

he does encourage couples to use methods of birth control that he considers dignified or ethical. those methods include abstinence, they also include the rhythm method. you avoid sexual intercourse at moments when a woman is more fertile. but also, sleeping indifferent beds. these are things that he is okay with. he does not like other types of birth control. he doesn't like condoms, fuchsias, diaphragms, or abortions. that's because of their relation to bikes trade. we were talking about the progressive era, these types of reform movements, these types of birth control had been linked to vice industries. certainly as a matter of vocation. sometimes women who are prostitutes, employing these different methods because they needed to continue working. we are putting this in the context, it's a refresher, of the 19th century.

we are looking at gender ideology, separate spheres, race suicide. if you are an educated middle and upper class white woman, you want to use these types of methods, they are at best found upon. again, if you're married, and at worst immoral. if you are a single woman attempting to use these other methods, any other methods, you are considered and moral. let's look at an example of a 19th century abortionist. this is the example. her name was first intro she was born in 1912. -- now in 1836, she marry demand and that is when she began to embark on this career as a professor of women's medicine,

a midwife, and abortionist, purveyor of contraceptives. her husband supported her in this saying that they were in this together. this whole patent medicine that may not have been effective. they made most of their money providing abortions, illegal abortions. she became very well known and came under scrutiny from various different religious and moral reform groups in new york city. 1841 was a year of our first trial. she was charged with performing an abortion on a woman, resulting in her death. she has several various rushes with the law. some of the critics against her cited the fact that she donated to political campaigns, had the police department on her payroll, and always seemed to get off easy. sometimes she settled out of court. in the one trial after which

she is found guilty. she serves time in prison. that was an 1847. she receives special treatment in prison. the city council investigated it. the warden of the president was fired. upon her release from prison in 1847, they continued their work and or so profitable in this that when her stepdaughter got married in 1854 she actually is rumored to have given them a 50,000 dollar wedding gift. 50,000 in 1854. paying for their european honeymoon. they were doing quite well. they also managed to buy a four story brown stone on fifth avenue which is prime real estate in new york city. they are not slamming it over here. after charles died, it looked like she was going to retire. in 1878, anthony comstock

disguised himself as a potential customer and pretended to need contraceptive material. he made a bunch of purchases and used those to collect a search warrant and had her raided. she was brought to trial for violation of the comstock act. she tried to do some legal maneuvering and had her attorney tried to help her out but it was to no avail. it seemed like she was going to do a hard time for this trial. on the day her trial was supposed to begin, she slit her throat in the bathtub. april 1st 1878. some people did criticize comstock for entrapment but he was very nonchalant about it. he called it a bloody and to a bloody life. her estate was valued and over 1 million dollars at the time which is over 25 million dollars today.

any question so far? . comstock was not the only person who was opposed to abortion at this time. it is important to note that the 19th century is an area transition when looking at the abortion business. there had been earlier arguments against abortion before this. but when you couple this with mass media, with the spread of print materials, the wide dissemination of ideas and advertisements, it affords greater opportunity for this previously taboo subject to become open and well-known in the public. people can talk and discuss about it a little bit more. in the 18 twenties and 18 thirties, we begin to see some territories and states actually beginning to implement some of the first abortion laws. most of these legislators imagine that these laws are a

form of consumer protection. that they are creating these laws in order to protect women. since there is increased medical and technological advancements that are going on during this era, you do have new methods of birth control and abortion that are untested. that can be really crude if performed in the wrong hands. this image for example is a long spoon-like device. it is sir rated and this would be used to perform in abortion. you would dilate the cervix, you would insert this device and scrape the uterine walls. if you have someone who is unskilled or who is not a qualified medical professional, this can potentially be dangerous and deadly to a woman. to an extent, these laws do

function to protect women because they are trying to keep the wrong people from performing these procedures. doctor who ratio store would become the preeminent face of the anti abortion movement in the 19th century. he believed medical men where the guardians of women and children. he is the quintessential example of an american medical association member of the 19th -- 19th century. he is from new england and went to harvard. he was great religious. he was a member of one of these first generations of gynecologists who are basically moving into this brand new field. he is a contemporary of people like jake marion sims we read about in medical bondage. he is most well-known for his

efforts to eradicate the practice of abortion. he and his contemporaries are actually responsible for making abortion a moral issue for the first time. previously, no one was really interested or invested in the moral implications of abortion. no one talked about abortion in a moral way before, at least not in relation to it being a potential person. but he and others like him, began to refer to abortion as infanticide or prenatal infanticide, even murder. they emphasized their own education and specialization to basically argue that they were the people who were best in position to lobby the government to basically eradicate this practice. we have previously talked about the development of the medical field and how it worked in tandem with delegitimizing midwives and doctors.

this is part of that as well because it is usually midwives and physicians of color who were most likely to perform abortions. so it is not just about this moral thing, it is also about suggesting that these other people should not be qualified to practice medicine, we are. we american medical association members are. so basically, as a result of this campaign, good reputable doctors did not perform abortions unless it was absolutely necessary to protect the life of a woman. other than that, abortions were immoral because fetuses were potential persons. by 1880, all states have laws against abortion. no questions? yes. >> what was the reasons they had against abortion? >> it was more about sex being

for procreation and that it should be within the confines of marriage. it was less about the fact that this was a person and more about this meant you are having a moral sex practices. >> are they actually bunched by the government or where they a bunch of doctors who said they are the authority now. >> it was a bunch of physicians who organized themselves saying they were creating standards. it is not backed by the government. rather, they formed their own lobbying group to say we are going to define the standards of professional medicine and we are going to be gatekeepers for this practice to make sure that everyone meets the standards. that we have a mainline position on things. they basically become a lobbying group after that. other questions?

>> so you have doctor storer and others putting forth a moral and educational campaign. another thing that is adding fuel to this movement to get rid of abortion was the proliferation of abortion stories in the press. most women who acquire abortions in the late 19th and early 20th century do so quietly using referrals from france, sisters, coworkers maybe even trusted physicians. many of these women secretly have successful abortions and we do not know anything about them. but these are not the women who become topics of conversation in popular culture. that you have this sensationalism of publicized abortion related deaths that provide fodder for reformers, physicians and other more lists who believe that legalized abortion is gradually going to erode america's moral fabric. in typical yellow journalism

fashion, newspapers of the 19th and early 20th century broadcasted story after story of the young, pretty girls who were dying as a result of illegal abortions. undercover reporters at one time, for the new york times, ended up actually releasing a 25 part expose a called infanticide. so basically talk about the dangers of a legal abortion and its villainous providers in new york city. in this investigation, there were two journalists who went undercover pretending to be a couple. in this long form exposé, they transported readers of their newspaper to the abortion underworld. thanks post physicians, midwives and police officers who were basically receiving bribes or who were somehow involved with this trade. using abortion stories as city human interest stories helped

the newspapers to profit because you can spread these stories out four days at a time. you can give a little bit one day and then drag it out for a week or two if you wanted. if you recall, a couple of weeks ago we saw a short clip from the 1934 film road to ruin. if you remember, they were having a party and then eve and and were taken away by a female police officer and medically inspected. we've had syphilis and then she reforms and changes her life. and finds out she's pregnant. when i turned off the clip, i told you and's boyfriend tells or he will not marry her and takes her to have an illegal abortion and she dies. that is the same kind of thing except that was a film example. but you have these stories of sex and jilted lovers, cover ups and death and it is really titillating for whoever is

reading or watching them. but it is important to know that they also fit within this larger framework. it is not just about stopping abortion, it is also fitting within other attempts to regulate sexuality and make sure that sexuality was conforming with heteronormative sexual practices. repressing homosexuality, preventing abortion, policing prostitution and preventing the dissemination of obscene material. it is making sure that women's sexuality fits within a certain framework and that that framework is merit of reproductive sex. everyone else should be ashamed. so these women who died from these procedures cannot conceal their identity or practices anymore. they kind of serve as cautionary tales for everyone else. questions? even though there is this

policing, abortions do not disappear. by the 1920s, the campaigns against abortion had created a more hostile environment for women seeking these procedures. women may have field harassed by these physicians and some women may have felt guilty to speak about their doctor about this. it is also harder to get abortion if the positions are cracking down on other providers through their internal regulation. law enforcement is helping with that as well. abortion is a legally ambiguous procedure in the united states. i mention that by 1880, all states have laws against and what it is important to note that the procedure is not banned in and of itself. rather, the circumstances around abortion indicate whether the procedure is legal or illegal. this means that an abortion can

be legal for one woman and illegal for another or even legal for one woman's pregnancy and then illegal for her next pregnancy. the same woman. this is because every state with an abortion statute has a clause that provides exceptions for when a woman's life is in danger. if a woman's -- if a woman is likely going to die from this pregnancy, then a physician has the right and the authority to perform an abortion in that instance. but there are no clear criteria to assess whether or not a woman's life is at risk. so there is no checklist to determine what actually constitutes a risk to a woman's life. since physicians typically practiced independently, it was acceptable for them to come to their own conclusions and

assess whether or not they believed in abortion was medically necessary. this is considered a legal abortion. if it physician thinks that their patient has a condition that will threaten her life with the pregnancy, he or she can just schedule the procedure and that is it. what if physicians are hard-line members like a ratio storer, they may be less inclined to provide the procedure. >> what if theyúqxw went to anor state to get an abortion? >> laws vary in every single state. they do not need to go to another state, they could go to another position that they can convince. that is an interesting and good point that bianca just brought up. because, by the 19 fifties and sixties, and we will get there in a second, this legal distinction becomes incredibly amorphous. by the time we get to the 19 fifties and sixties, we have an

abuse of this trust that professional medical members have given individual physicians that leads to that decision being removed from the individual physician and placed in the hands of a committee. it is no longer your individual physician who says i think it's necessary. it is now three to five physicians you've never met who decide whether you should have an abortion or not. will get there in a bit however. what is interesting as well is that for some women it creates a space for negotiation. right? if i want this position to continue working for me and my family, you will find a reason to justify the abortion. it is legally amorphous. eventually, we'll talk about it in a second, it goes out of the positions hands. as professional medicine

circumscribes what constitutes legal abortions, in the 1920s it is only an exception for life. for a woman's life being in danger. as this is a pretty hard line stance, there are other people who take advantage of this. you get the emergence of the abortion specialist in the 19 thirties. the abortion specialist is strictly performing illegal abortions. they are taking advantage of technologies, new ones, antibiotics we, and trying to fill this market niche for them. we're talking about one of these abortion specialists in california. it's not just one, it's like 30 of them. in 1934 with, regional rankin approaches george watts. he proposed to him and idea for

an organized criminal abortion syndicate that would span the entire west coast from seattle to the u.s. mexico border. watts -- he approached wants specifically because he was an abortion specialist. he had developed a new method called the vacuum aspiration technique. it sounds incredibly scary but it meant that his abortions were safe. he was able to practice for years, to stay under the radar. it reduced the risk of infection because it basically removed all fetal tissue from the uterus. that is why his method worked. he approached watts, and watts came on board. rankin brought in other specialists, physicians even. he created new offices, and by

1936 he had over 30 abortion specialists working for him. two most women who sought the services of rankin or any other physicians working for him, ranking himself was not a specialist or abortionist. he was the genius, the mastermind behind all of it. if any woman went to one of their clinics, it would seem like any other visit to a another medical clinic. except that a woman might be blindfolded. she might not see the person providing the procedure to her. or she might have several doctors in the room with her at a time so that she can identify which one performed the procedure. but when the woman arrives for treatment, she would tell the nurse or receptionist how far along she was.

that would determine the cost. the further along she was, the more it would cost. ideally, they like to charge between 30 and 50 dollars for a procedure. this was only in the first six to eight weeks. if you were to put that in two modern values, the government inflation calculator only goes up to 2019. if you were to put 35 to 50 dollars in 2019 value, it would be between 660 and 950 dollars. again, this is only in the first six to eight weeks. 12 weeks along? then ecliptic charge between 50 and 75 dollars, maybe even 100. beyond 12 weeks, the clinic was supposed to collect as much as possible. 200, 250, even 300 dollars. i put those values, some of them, here for you. 250 would be about 4700 dollars today.

once the staff had collected forms, these, they would escort to patient to the operating room. she would have the procedure. this is one of the physicians. if you want to know more about it, read my book. (laughs) >> this was an underground ring? >> yes, illegal. >> mostly for wealthy people? >> if we are looking at the values, for example, 660 dollars is obviously a lot of money. if we're looking at the modern-day equivalent. you get a lot of young working women who get these procedures. they have maybe saved money, taken a loan, borrowed money from friends even. we see that later some women turned in for kurz, engagement

rings instead. they might have been insured, they could say someone stole it or lost it. they could use those valuables as a way to cover this cost. i don't cover it in the lecture. they organized their own credit arm. they helped to finance women who could not afford it upfront. they charged more for it. but a created a plane plan for some women who couldn't pay upfront. they were innovative. this ring, they are in operation for a few years. after tips, there is a series of raids. it's brought down by a joint task force of the lapd, the same francisco police department, the l.a. menial county sheriff's. all of the members of the ring were arrested. it's incredibly profitable.

i cannot stress it enough. if we're just looking at the downtown los angeles office, the knitted equivalent of about 85,000 dollars per month. that is after fees, commissions, everything. that is profit, 85,000 dollars a month. just from the downtown l.a. office. that office isn't san diego, law beach, seattle, san francisco, oakland, and many more. they are not doing too bad. the district attorney, when doing the raids, they find a wealth of paperwork, documentation. they found the names of patients, coerce them to testify on the stands. it results and guilty verdicts for most of the conspirators. under many respects with this ring -- their success was mainly because they were able to provide safe and illegal abortions. it contributed to their demise. in contrast to almost every other prosecution, every other

prosecuted case before it, they didn't have fatalities. no woman died in one of their clinics. they did not lose a single woman. and even though women were dying from illegal abortions elsewhere, they were not receiving their abortions from this clinic, or any of their clinics. this is really the antithesis of the abortion stories and the newspapers of the 1920s. for the first time, it appears that illegal abortions can be safe. you might not end up in one of these newspaper stories about a young, dad, pretty girl. questions? >> because those women were going to illegal clinics, where they also facing consequences as well? >> that is a good question. technically, they could be charged.

but they, the district attorney often said they would only charge them if they did not testify. they were coerced, encouraged, urged. basically told they could avoid criminal penalties if they were open and vocal. if they told about the procedure. this is regional, this is his mugshot. before the rank in case, people in the state of california versus rankin, successful abortions were invisible from the wider public. but with scores of living witnesses, there is a mountain of evidence against them. what this case does, i argue, is that it opens stricter reinforcements of the abortion statute in california. fewer physicians risk of doing the procedure unless they are sure that their patient has a

clear and justifiable reason. furthermore, on top of this, in the 1930s, we do begin to see more labor delivery and other services like this moving into the hospital. legal abortions as well. if legal abortions are moving into hospitals, whereas before they might have been performed in doctors offices, then the need for these clinics, even their visibility, comes under greater scrutiny. now there is effectively a lower burden of proof necessary to bring an illegal abortionist to prison. if legal abortions are taking place in hospitals, then clinics do not need speculative's. no operating tables, any of those things because abortions, legal abortions, should be taking place in a hospital. if women are surviving their

illegal abortions because of antibiotics, sterilized equipment, then they can be coerced into testifying against the abortionist. in court, when these women are forced to testify, the attorneys don't make any efforts to try and understand why the women wanted to obtain the procedures. most of the time they asked if they had an illness, a defect that would make them incapable of carrying the pregnancy to term. to this, most women responded no. they technically did not have a disease or defect. they were tired, previously had a difficult pregnancy, or they were not ready for another child. so few of these women were given the opportunities to speak for themselves, to explain themselves outside of the narrative that the da was leaning them towards. some women do try to speak for themselves. they say they were appreciative of rankin, some of the other

doctors as well. that was it. under examination, in court, these women were often forced to divulge intimate details about their private lives, their sex lives, the procedures, even their bodies. prosecutors asked them about what positions they assumed on the table. whether they were naked, felt the speculates being inserted into them. when grace peterson took the stand to talk about her abortion, she cried. she said that she told them that she had it done. she said isn't that enough? you also have this movement towards surveillance. that is what these two pictures are showing. these are women who are going in and out of court to testify against abortionists. they are trying to hide their face. these are two different surveillance operations. this is in l.a.. you have police officers part across the street in cars,

taking pictures, watching the office of a presumed abortionist. they are treating track of who goes in and out. how they assess the position to be as they make their exit. you see a woman in this one. they are watching in this one. for some of the women, instead of tolerating any evasive line of questioning. something that was probably already evasive, the abortion. other women see this and begin to look for other options. how can the escape the tournament and shame that is being brought on it by criminal trial, a public criminal trial? what are the options for these women after that? you can try to we have a legal abortion in a strict environment. or you can take your chances with a illegal provider. questions? >> i am curious. during this time, what was the

reasoning behind the abortion being illegal. did it have anything to do with past eugenics movements? >> that is a great point. we will mention that in a couple of slides. i see that more as we -- i frame in a different way in the next slides. it could be about ensuring that certain people continue to reproduce at a higher level. i am sure that is a sentiment that is there. it could be concerns about morality. right? they think it's an immoral thing to do. the ami has been so successful and saying these are babies. these are bad women. right? especially if married. they are trying to aboard the pregnancies. they are failing at what is supposed to define a proper

woman's role. that -- it is something that i don't talk about now. about 80% of all women in the period of study that i look at in los angeles county, about 80% of them were married women